Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

The honeymoon phase with Helldivers 2 is ending earlier than expected for me. I say to myself "Self, why are you losing interest in this game so quickly?" There's a bunch of reasons, but a core pillar of game design has been flubbed by Arrowhead Studios...

Loadouts are inferior to mid match progression.

Helldivers 2s maps are filled with objectives, side objectives, and random small points of interest that all yield one of five currencies. Everything you "earn" in game provides you with something to spend after the match.

That's objectively bad game design.

If you're building your character mid match, choices become significantly more interesting. Do you attack objective A to procure the Rocket Launcher or do you attack objective B to procure the Orbital Strike? Do you want to take on the outpost to procure +5 reinforcements or is your team healthy enough for the final push? This leads to a significantly wider variety of "stories" to be created and played out. It encourages communication and a wider variety of strategies.

Loadouts incentivize the player to quickly shift to efficiency mode rather than experimentation and gambling mode.

Guys, can someone give me the number to the Nintendo Hotline? The industry needs to know this ASAP.

Loadouts are BS because you're locked in and you know what you're going to get. Every match plays out exactly the same (relatively speaking).

 

[BennyBlanco]

I like both ways but I see your point. PUBG had its hooks in me like no other shooter ever and the way you have to build your character every game in the middle of the match probably was a big part of that.

 

[bender]

Just kill your teammates and steal their equipment. I get flamethrowers like that all the time.

 

[ReBurn]

Objectively?

 

[RoadHazard]

I agree, I don't like games where you choose a loadout (or class for that matter) before the match starts. I much prefer a simpler structure where everyone always starts out the same, and then it's up to you to make the right choices during the match.

But I understand you can't really build a live service game with unlocks and shit on that. Which is why I don't play them.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I like both ways but I see your point. PUBG had its hooks in me like no other shooter ever and the way you have to build your character every game in the middle of the match probably was a big part of that.

It allows you to experience and appreciate the entire slate of weapons & items in the game too.

I'm probably going to stop playing H2 pretty soon and I haven't used roughly 80% of the weapons/stratagems in the game because I like what I like. I like the turrets and I haven't touched the Eagle stuff.

In PUBG, that weapon you have no interest in using becomes valuable if that's all you got with an enemy nearby. Then a lot of times you go "Actually, this weapon isn't so bad. I could use it in this scenario."

It's objective!

 

[killatopak]

I feel like this is a parallel of people who like weapon breaking in BoTW and those who don't.

I'm in the camp of those who like my weapons not breaking so load outs for me.

 

[Dafegamer]

There's no "objectively" as this is your opinion

 

[Phase]

That's exactly why I love arena shooters like Halo and Quake over all else, though if it's done right (e.g. Battlefield) I love that too.

 

[Danjin44]

Guys, can someone give me the number to the Nintendo Hotline? The industry needs to know this ASAP.

Nintendo:

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

There's no "objectively" as this is your opinion

You are literally Hitler.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I feel like this is a parallel of people who like weapon breaking in BoTW and those who don't.

I'm in the camp of those who like my weapons not breaking so load outs for me.

No, you must reconsider.

Both philosophies can be implemented to varying degrees of quality.

I much prefer in match progression but I wasn't thrilled with weapons breaking in Zelda either.

Join me. Unite against the BS that is loadouts.

 

[R6Rider]

WTF are those poll options?

 

[Shut0wen]

So your mindless enough not to make multiple loadouts all different to one another, shit take but just do you my man

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

That's objectively bad game design.

You don't know what objectively means.
You make the weirdest threads trying to shove your fortnite love on the rest of us.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Both have their merits and demerits. Loadouts let you be immediately dropped into the action without having to worry about secondary stuff, although its true it can make them feel mindless and push players towards always playing with the same build.

Procure-on-site makes matches more dynamic, but also somewhat reliant on luck assuming there's a random element, whereas if all equipment locations and maps are predeterminated it'll push players towards always making the same strategies and routes, which is arguably worse.

Loadouts incentivize the player to quickly shift to efficiency mode rather than experimentation and gambling mode.

Can't agree here. Loadouts let you experiment much more easily since you're free to try any combination you want whenever you want. Unless we're talking about lazy players who can't be bothered and must be forced to experiment by the game.

 

[MiguelItUp]

That's exactly why I love arena shooters like Halo and Quake over all else, though if it's done right (e.g. Battlefield) I love that too.

Exactly where I'm at. Depends on the game and what's best for it. I don't mind it either way, as long as it fits and feels right.

Loadouts in DOOM 2016 felt REALLY out of place to me, made it feel like it had some kind of personality disorder. But everything else about the multiplayer I loved, personally.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Both have their merits and demerits. Loadouts let you be immediately dropped into the action without having to worry about secondary stuff, although its true it can make them feel mindless and push players towards always playing with the same build.

Procure-on-site makes matches more dynamic, but also somewhat reliant on luck assuming there's a random element, whereas if all equipment locations and maps are predeterminated it'll push players towards always making the same strategies and routes, which is arguably worse.

I see it as:

In match progression is better for "story based multiplayer"

Loadouts are better for "sports based multiplayer".

Helldivers 2 is firmly rooted in story based multiplayer so the loadouts work against it imo.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I see it as:

In match progression is better for "story based multiplayer"

Loadouts are better for "sports based multiplayer".

Helldivers 2 is firmly rooted in story based multiplayer so the loadouts work against it imo.

i'd say its more "Survival based" vs "Tactical based". Helldivers 2 seems to lean more towards the military shooter range of things rather than survival or a "hunger games" style, so it makes sense there.